Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Ivan, Would I be wrong if I described the logic of these two comparators as the following: The comparator compares two character sequences as though each of them would be 1st transformed into a tuple of the form: (A0, N0, A1, N1, ..., An-1, Nn-1, An) where: A0 and An are (possibly

Re: Review Request: JDK-8161121: VM::isSystemDomainLoader should consider platform class loader

On 28/07/2017 06:00, Mandy Chung wrote: With deprivileging, several modules of the runtime are mow defined to the platform class loader. VM::isSystemDomainLoader is extended to detect if the given class loader is boot loader or platform loader. Webrev:

Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Ivan, A few comments. I don't have a specific suggestion for a different name, but I don't think "comparingNumerically" does an adequate job capturing the described behavior of the method. Likewise, the summary of the methods' behavior in the javadoc should have a more suggestive

Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Peter! Thank a lot for looking into this! On 7/28/17 7:32 AM, Peter Levart wrote: Hi Ivan, In the light of what Stuart Marks wrote, then what do you think about a parameterized comparator (would be sub-optimal, I know) where one would supply 2 Comparator(s) which would be used to compare

Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Jonathan! On 7/24/17 3:42 AM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote: You're welcome Ivan! I'm just proofreading the new webrev, and a few more things have occurred to me: 1. What happens if the comparators are given the elements {"1abc", "2abc", "10abc"} to compare? Would they sort the elements

Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Ivan, In the light of what Stuart Marks wrote, then what do you think about a parameterized comparator (would be sub-optimal, I know) where one would supply 2 Comparator(s) which would be used to compare Ax and Nx sub-sequences respectively as described below... For Nx sub-sequences, one

Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Roger! On 7/24/17 7:42 AM, Roger Riggs wrote: Hi Ivan, Thanks for bringing this up again. Some initial comments, not a full review. Though the enhancement says that no consideration is given to sign characters they may produce puzzling results for strings like "-2000" and "-2001" where

Re: RFR(XS) 8184775: tools/launcher/modules/illegalaccess/IllegalAccessTest.java times out on some platforms…

Hi Currently there were no timeouts wit fastdebug were observed. I don’t know exactly how Xint affects this test but don’t expect significant performance degradation comparing with other tests. Usually timeoutfactor is used to increase timeouts of all tests if VM or host are slow. However

Re: [10] RFR: 8184940: JDK 9 rejects zip files where the modified day or month is 0

I took another look. 90 if ((dtime >> 25) == 0) { It looks like this will test only the year, not all the date fields. Shouldn't that be s/25/16/ ? Does this code handle the "true" epoch of 1980-01-01 ? On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:

RFR(XS) 8184775: tools/launcher/modules/illegalaccess/IllegalAccessTest.java times out on some platforms…

Hi Please review following small fix which excludes test tools/launcher/modules/illegalaccess/IllegalAccessTest.java from execution in Xcomp mode. Test launches about 100 VMs and fails when -Xcomp is used. Tested locally with and without adding -Xcomp option. Webrev:

Re: RFR(XS) 8184775: tools/launcher/modules/illegalaccess/IllegalAccessTest.java times out on some platforms…

On 28/07/2017 22:17, Martin Buchholz wrote: Won't this test fail with any "slow" VM, e.g. fastdebug, -Xint, etc ? When testing with debug builds or -Xint or -Xcomp then default timeout is often insufficient so the recommendation has always been to specify -timeoutFactor to jtreg. This test

Re: RFR(XS) 8184775: tools/launcher/modules/illegalaccess/IllegalAccessTest.java times out on some platforms…

Won't this test fail with any "slow" VM, e.g. fastdebug, -Xint, etc ? On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Leonid Mesnik wrote: > Hi > > Please review following small fix which excludes test > tools/launcher/modules/illegalaccess/IllegalAccessTest.java from > execution in

Re: RFR(XS) 8184775: tools/launcher/modules/illegalaccess/IllegalAccessTest.java times out on some platforms…

OK, that makes sense - short-lived programs with -Xcomp are dominated by cost of compiling everything. On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leonid Mesnik wrote: > Hi > > Currently there were no timeouts wit fastdebug were observed. I don’t know > exactly how Xint affects

Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Ivan, It looks like the MyComparator code example which you gave in your last email lost its formatting along the way, so I'm finding it difficult to read. Would you mind resubmitting it? Cheers, Jonathan On 28 July 2017 at 17:25, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hi

Re: RFR: JDK-8183579: refactor and cleanup launcher help messages

Mandy, Thanks for the reviewplease see in-lined comments, On Jul 20, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote: Hi, Please review refactoring and clean up of the java launcher's help/usage messages. The highlights of the changes are as follows: 1.